D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

What do you like to see in your character creation rules?

  • Fixed ASI including possible negatives.

    Votes: 27 19.9%
  • Fixed ASI without negatives.

    Votes: 5 3.7%
  • Floating ASI with restrictions.

    Votes: 8 5.9%
  • Floating ASI without restrictions.

    Votes: 31 22.8%
  • Some fixed and some floating ASI.

    Votes: 19 14.0%
  • No ASI

    Votes: 35 25.7%
  • Other (feel free to describe)

    Votes: 11 8.1%


log in or register to remove this ad


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
If you assume that Rule 0 means you can make up any rule you like,
It does.
then you may as well call chess D&D, because you call your Knights Rogues, your Queen a Wizard, and your pawns Fighters. It is the equivalent.
At a ridiculous extreme, yes it is.

Ignoring the ridiculous, however, one can rule-0 the hell out of the game and still recognize it as - and call it - D&D.

Either that, or I've been doing it wrong for a hella long time.
 

J.Quondam

CR 1/8
Then perhaps you should create a thespian group and stop pretending you are playing D&D. Given you played 5 sessions before even selecting a class, it is impossible to say you were playing D&D, since there is no level 0 in 5e, and you have to pick a class from the beginning.
Well... if you scroll through DM's Guild, you'll see thousands of products offering new and variant rules of all sorts, including (I'm guessing) plenty of options for starting off with a classless level 0.
All that stuff appears in the official online D&D shop with the blessing of the publisher of D&D. It is "D&D".
 
Last edited:

Oh the monk is amazing.
It's just very squishy at what the roles you expect it to be and/or gasses out very quickly because its' core design is based on ability scores with other classes' are based on equipment and proficiency.

All the classes and subclasses based on ability score are lower on the totem pole.

I think you hit the answer there: it was a large group.

Suboptimal characters can often do far better in a larger group where their weaknesses can be more easily covered off by other characters yet their strengths can still shine through.

A Monk in a three-character party is probably going to end up a liablility, assuming typical-average play.
A Monk in a party of 8? Rock on, dude!

Edit to add: and this was just as true in 1e as it seems to be now.
I definitely think the large group helped. And often, especially at higher levels, we only had one combat per long rest. That made the monk (and paladin for that matter) really really shine.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
If you assume that Rule 0 means you can make up any rule you like
Er, that's literally what rule 0 means. That wasn't rule 0, though. That was advice on how to play 5e in a rulings over rules system.
, then you may as well call chess D&D, because you call your Knights Rogues, your Queen a Wizard, and your pawns Fighters.
False Equivalence for the lose!
It is the equivalent.
No it ain't.
 

Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
If you assume that Rule 0 means you can make up any rule you like, then you may as well call chess D&D, because you call your Knights Rogues, your Queen a Wizard, and your pawns Fighters. It is the equivalent.
I had a portion of my campaign where the PCs spent hours in a demiplane slaying a dragon where time ran very fast as compared to their home plane.

When they returned thousands of years had passed, the elves had all died out, and magic was gone from the world. With the help of some helicopter flying dwarves they were able to adventure the radioactive wasteland and locate the last raining magician, the elf who was head of the mage academy in their time who had lichified himself. The lich was able to destroy his reality and use the energies to cast a one-time ritual to send the PCs back to their original time but with knowledge of what would happen to the world if they didn't alter some important events.

The adventure was awesome and built on a heavily slathered layer of Rule 0.

Or do you want to hear about the time my campaign was set in the imagination of a child on the border of becoming a teen and how it reflected in the fantasy world as an impending apocalypse?

Rule 0 is the key to the shackles of worn out tropes.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Not really. I can agree that "building a reasonably efficient character and not gimping yourself" by making your primary ability scores highest - as you are advised to do in the PHB - is not power gaming.

Good then.

Up thread your actual words implied that choosing an alignment of ASI and efficacy in play, was always power gaming. If true, the order of choosing race, class, and score allocation doesn't change that. I feel like your position has changed and I certainly would not find fault for that or hold you to any previous position.

No, you twist my words and do selective quoting, so you might get that impression, but it's only you.

From the OP - "For some reason the world comes together to mandate one very important rule that will permeate all societies for the endless future. Oddly, this declaration reflects how WotC is allowed to present character options during creation in their D&D game. There can only be ONE official method."

Nothing here about future edition in particular. See above, you are doing it again, both to the OP and myself.

I very happily agree that there are a wide range of behaviours. In saying that, I cannot help but recall with irony that you recently very firmly told me that there was no such wide range of behaviours.

Sorry, but no, this is again you inventing things.

That you knew player motivations better than they knew themselves, and any alignment of scores with efficacy in game must amount to power gaming. You don't recall making those arguments up-thread? Comments like "...it still boils down to exactly one thing: "I want a 16 because others can have it, and the game is unappealing to me because I am not as powerful as others (coud be)"?

That is my thought about floating ASIs, how does this invalidate that there are whole ranges of power gaming ?

Do you recall your words up-thread that "let's look at rolling stats, which is still the only default option in the game. I'm not sure how many people are using this, in percentage. There are lots of people who use it for power reasons, because it's the only way in the rules to get really powerful scores..." Is it right to say that over the course of our conversation, you have changed your mind?

No, but you have changed my text, and in particular just snipped that quote exactly when I started explaining what was happening. As multiple other persons wrote, the problem is usually not ONE option in particular (individually, the options are usually fairly well proof-read and playtested), it's the combination that creates problem.

In this case, powergamers don't like rolling if they can't modify the scores after, as they are stuck with odd scores which cause them problems especially when forcing them to thing ASI vs. Feat. It also disrupt the builds that they find on the internet and confuses in particular those who are mainly copycats. But if combined with the Floating ASIs that allow them to customise the scores however they want after rolling, and getting rid of at least one odd score and pumping that 18 to 20, then it's the best combination ever.

So why don't you go back to the topic at hand and stop nitpicking every single word I write, especially if it's to change them, selectively quote and misinterpret ?
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
It's not really a dichotomy, though. You don't have to pick a race because it's cool or because it has a good stat bonus. It can be both and in equal amounts. I have at time picked a race because it was cool and I had a good concept and the bonus didn't align. Other times I picked a race because it was cool and I had a good concept, and the bonus did align. I've never picked any race for bonus only, or a race that I didn't think was cool.

Absolutely, in this like in most other things, it's usually a wide range of choices, and possibly on multiple axis. I thought I was clear about saying "just for the stat bonus", but you're right, it's better to make it clearer.

Also, you do not become a full-grown munchkin as soon as you do a little bit of optimisation, it's a bit like alignment, it's only if you start doing things repeatedly in the same direction that you become chaotic evil... :D
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Between +1 everywhere (which, with rolled stats, can result in a lot of good stats) and a feat, depending on what feat you allow, I don't think it's more "powerful" to starts with one. But I usually taylor feats to tie with the settings so no -5/+10 pure mechanical feats.

In general, I agree with you, most of the feats are actually fairly reasonable, and should not cause a problem. The difficulty is that the feats are a bit of a strapped on rule (and they remain an option, therefore less play-tested), and it's only SOME of the feats that cause problems, and it's always the same ones, because they can be abused and some of those bloody builds cannot exist without them. Not only that, but feats like PAM and Shield Master are bloody annoying since they slow down the game a lot, with additional effects even at low level (and I also totally hate the visual effect of shield master, ragdolling an opponent every round).

In my soon-to-start powergaming DM's campaign, we are allowed one feat at level 1, but it's along a selected list of half-feats, and that's OK, it's not really that powerful and it gives some additional usual social benefits, but the point is that, because it's a half-feat, it still gets a +1 to a stat, and since we are rolling stats... Well, you see where it leads, it's always these combinations...
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
When the table play priority is "do your own thing", which is generally my preference, what then?

Then since there there are no other priorities, it's cool, but I'm not sure everyone is as lucky or determined or experienced as you are, and even with our experienced gamers, we still run session 0 to make sure that we align for every campaign...

As long as it stays in character, I've no problem with any of this; and sooner or later it'll get sorted one way or another.

Look, we've discussed a number of times and I'm fairly sure that you actually run a pretty tight ship. :)
 


Lyxen

Great Old One
Call me crazy, but rearranging the rolled scores to suit - as opposed to strict roll-in-order - is and always has been just a baked-in part of the process to me.

I certainly don't file this under "powergaming". :)

That's not what I'm saying here, of course arranging scores in order has been the thing for decades, I'm mentioning adding +1 or +2 to some stats. If it's racial, it's a bit harder than Floating ASIs, which basically allow you to patch whatever you want on top of rearranging.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
That's not what I'm saying here, of course arranging scores in order has been the thing for decades, I'm mentioning adding +1 or +2 to some stats. If it's racial, it's a bit harder than Floating ASIs, which basically allow you to patch whatever you want on top of rearranging.
Ah. I thought by "modify" you meant "rearrange".

In my game there's species-based bonuses and penaitles but they're not flat + or - values; instead each stat for a non-Human has a minimum, a maximum, and a bell curve between those, and your 3-18 roll is adjusted to suit the requisite bell curve.

So if you're an Elf your Dex is on something like a 7-19 curve rather than 3-18; so if you roll* a 3 it becomes a 7, if you roll an 18 it becomes a 19, if you roll a 12 it becomes a 14, and so on across the board. A Dwarf's Charisma, on the other hand, is on a 3-16 curve, so if you roll a 3 it stays a 3, if you roll an 18 it becomes 16, and if you roll a 12 it becomes 11.

The net result is that the bell curve morphs to suit rather than just shifts a step in one direction or another.

* - after rearranging.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Ah. I thought by "modify" you meant "rearrange".

Yes, sorry, I was not clear enough...

In my game there's species-based bonuses and penaitles but they're not flat + or - values; instead each stat for a non-Human has a minimum, a maximum, and a bell curve between those, and your 3-18 roll is adjusted to suit the requisite bell curve.

So if you're an Elf your Dex is on something like a 7-19 curve rather than 3-18; so if you roll* a 3 it becomes a 7, if you roll an 18 it becomes a 19, if you roll a 12 it becomes a 14, and so on across the board. A Dwarf's Charisma, on the other hand, is on a 3-16 curve, so if you roll a 3 it stays a 3, if you roll an 18 it becomes 16, and if you roll a 12 it becomes 11.

The net result is that the bell curve morphs to suit rather than just shifts a step in one direction or another.

* - after rearranging.

That's what RQ does and it's the best technique, the one difficulty with RQ is that it means rolling for stats in order, because some are 2d6, some 3d6, some 3d6+3, some 4d6, etc.

So it needs a bit a thought to get something where characters will not be really random...
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
So why don't you go back to the topic at hand and stop nitpicking every single word I write, especially if it's to change them, selectively quote and misinterpret ?
I'll continue to resist gaslighting and hold you to account for your actual words.

To the topic at hand, it feels like we've strayed from wanting fixed ASIs because it's essential to capture the feel of different races, all the way to there is no real mechanical difference between fixed and floating.

No. I simply claim that fixed ASI can do what you claim floating ASI can with the same results and with no power creep.
Is the concern truly power creep at heart, and not representing expectations about different races mechanically? If a player is concerned about power, I feel we still haven't seen expressed persuasively what it is about fixed ASIs that prevents them pursuing it?
 
Last edited:

Lyxen

Great Old One
I'll continue to resist gaslighting and hold you to account for your actual words.

As long as it's the actual words, you are welcome to it.

To the topic at hand, it feels like we've strayed from wanting fixed ASIs because it's essential to capture the feel of different races, all the way to there is no real mechanical difference between fixed and floating.

Uh, no, I don't have that feeling at all.

Is the concern truly power creep at heart, and not representing expectations about different races mechanically?

Again, and I've said the exact thing before, it's both. Floating ASIs are a (small) power creep, but worse in combination with other options, and that's one, but it also degrades the perception of races, in particular for people expecting certain views from the genre fiction, books/movies/shows and in particular D&D ones (books in general). I have nothing against a player playing an oddball of a race, but if every PC is an oddball, it's just bizarre, and in the end, I'm pretty sure that they are mostly "oddballs" in stat only.

If a player is concerned about power, I feel we still haven't seen expressed persuasively what it is about fixed ASIs that prevents them pursuing it?

It still makes the choices more significant.

Based on recent conversation, it appears many might agree that it isn't power creep to make reasonable choices and avoid gimping your character. You're advised to do so in the core rules. Or does that still somehow fall into power creep, if the +2 is from floating ASIs rather than race? Remembering that fixed ASIs have been said to not prevent character concepts.

And once more, there is a difference between making reasonable choices and badgering your DM to allow an option because you want that sweet +3 for no other reason than because it's more than +2.

All the combinations already exist in the game, and they all make reasonable characters, everyone tells you this. Honest people then also say that they want the +3 because otherwise their character does not feel heroic/powerful enough for them, and that's fine if the DM and table agree. And that's the end of the story.
 

That's what RQ does and it's the best technique, the one difficulty with RQ is that it means rolling for stats in order, because some are 2d6, some 3d6, some 3d6+3, some 4d6, etc.
Rolling in order is the only way rolling makes any sense to begin with. Otherwise you're just randomising power, not what sort of character you get, and where's the fun in that?

So it needs a bit a thought to get something where characters will not be really random...
One would imagine that the point of randomising things is to make things random. If you don't want random, don't touch the dice.
 
Last edited:

Lyxen

Great Old One
Rolling in order is the only way rolling makes any sense to begin with. Otherwise you're just randomising power, not what sort of character you get, and where's fun in that?

One would imagine that point of randomising things is to make things random. If you don't want random, don't touch the dice.

In a sense, I agree with you, but you have to consider that we are only playing long campaigns, and we want players to enjoy their character and their concepts for 50+ sessions. If the rolls are really random, especially rolling stats in order, the player will get frustrated that his character concept cannot technically work.

It's been a long time since we rolled in order, and these were usually short lived characters "I'll make this one a wizard because his int is slightly better" is not that important when there is a 50% mortality rate in each adventure... :)
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top